Duración de la cartera

Although an understanding of what is implied by the term ‘Linguistic Ethnography’ has so far been highlighted and that it has also been shown how this approach may be appropriate for this study, yet, like all other approaches, linguistic ethnography has some limitations and poses some challenges which will be discussed in this section.

Indeed, a number of debates which have ensued on linguistic ethnography have been made available in the special issue of the Journal of Sociolinguistics (2007, p.5). Maybin and Tusting (2007) claim that there is much to be gained by combining the two disciplines. However, the very fact of bringing these two disciplines together is highly challenging, as they both emanate from two different paradigms: one ranging from a positivist structuralist discipline, and the other emanating from a social theoretical framework. They (ibid.) further claim that

(s)ocial interaction can be directly observed. But social inequalities, class structures and ethnic identities cannot simply be ‘read off’ linguistic data. Broader patterns of language use can be inferred from social interactions – but does this mean that they ‘exist’, in any meaningful sense, or are they just an analytic construct? Similarly, to explore class, ethnicity, or globalisation requires theories about broader forces in the social world. But do such things really ‘exist’, or are they merely theoretical constructs we use to talk about data? (p. 12).

They argue that within the paradigm that is created through the merging of linguistics and ethnography as disciplines, a tension arises between the social constructionist and the realistic

58

perspective. This can in turn bring forth a questioning of the validity of the analysis that one comes up with from using linguistic ethnography as an approach. Creese (2008) further argues that, when put alongside ethnography, certain purely structuralist linguistic traditions do not necessarily sit comfortably together as both stem from two different worldviews. This is also argued by Rampton et al. (2004, p.3), who claim that “(l)inguistics is a massively contested field”. There are a number of very robust linguistic sub-disciplines which treat language as an autonomous system (separating it from the contexts in which it is used).

Indeed, as was claimed in Chapter Two, past structuralist notions from the discipline of linguistics have viewed language as being a monolithic, bound and autonomous entity which can be studied as a separate entity. This clashes then with the very essence of ethnography, which views the phenomenon being studied as embedded within its context. Certainly, this tension which stems from the combination of theoretical and methodological frameworks to study different aspects of a social phenomenon might lead to a variety of knowledge claims which might then put into question the validity of the analysis that such a research might entail (Maybin and Tusting, 2007; Creese, 2008; Jacobs and Slembrouck , 2010).

The use of these two disciplines under one single approach and the tension that arises as a result of this has indeed been one of the main problematics of having used this approach to undertake this study. It has been challenging to maintain the right balance when analysing the data produced during fieldwork using the linguistic analytical frameworks that are available. Much reflection has been done before opting for the analytical frameworks which are available from the discipline of linguistics to avoid going down the structuralist end, a perspective from which this study has veered off at the very start (see Chapter Two). Hence, whereas ethnography focuses on the importance of context as the object of the study, certain aspects of linguistics also look at language as being dissociated from contexts. One of the ways in which this study addresses this issue is by opting for a reconceptualisation of the object that has been put under the lens. Thus, the construct of ‘linguistic repertoire’ has been put forward at the very beginning to shift away from the biased concept of language as being a bound, monolithic and discrete entity. In so doing, this study amalgamates language and context and allows for both disciplines to be combined without posing much challenge. Moreover, when the data sets were constructed, the interaction was embedded within a rich description of the context in which it was produced, and this is evident in the transcripts produced.

59

It should be noted that linguistic ethnography sets itself apart from ethnography through the use of different discourse analysis frameworks which are brought forward to look at interaction during the analytical process; notably stemming from the six traditions of discourse analysis, namely conversation analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis, Bakhtinian research and Foucault’s discourse analysis framework. As said before, choosing one tradition of discourse analysis which would sit best with the theoretical construct framework of this study has also proved to be a challenge as some of these discursive analysis processes have received vehement criticism for their structuralist edge (Li Wei, 2002; Myers- Scotton and Bolonyai, 2001; Wetherell, 1998; Billig, 1999) and their usage to ‘tie down’ the ethnography in linguistic ethnography has led to analyses which actually undermine context at the expense of linguistic data.

Indeed, conversational analysis as analytic framework (Rampton, Lefstein and Bezemer, 2010, p.5), which argues that “the ongoing, moment to moment construction social reality” can be seen if one looks at “the ways in which people build up an interactional event turn by turn” (ibid.) is one such discursive analytical framework which has been much criticised. Conversation analysis (CA), which originated from the realm of sociology within the works of Goffman, Sacks, Schegloff and Garfinkel (Goffman, 1963, 1974, 1981; Garfinkel, 1967), brought forth the notion of conversations as being sequentially organised (Psathas, 1995; Duranti, 1997). Turn-taking is taken to be the main analytical focus in an interaction within conversation analysis and it is argued that CA does not “assume in advance the relevance of social structure and does not impose any classificatory frameworks” (Cashman in Wei and Moyer, 2010, p.286). CA as an approach is vehemently criticised as it emphasises inconsequential details without taking in the wider scope of the context (Billig, 1999; Li Wei, 2002; Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai, 2001; Wetherell, 1998). This is precisely one of the main criticisms levied against linguistic ethnographies which have been carried out using the CA as analytical framework, studies which actually provided the foundation for linguistic ethnography as an approach. Indeed, CA as used within these research studies is found to be limiting for my study, as the minute analysis of turn taking in the interactions produced within the study will not enable me to answer the critical questions asked by this research.

One serious challenge in making use of any of the discursive analysis tool traditions that do exist (including conversational analysis, which has a very strong structuralist perspective) is that the

60

variety of choices that are actually available to the linguistic ethnographer can bring up methodological issues which might be problematic, as each of these discursive analysis traditions has a specific epistemological stance which influences how the phenomenon is conceptualised and studied. Each of these discursive analytical traditions has received a number of criticisms, notably because with such analytical frameworks it is deemed that meaning is always subject to change and therefore, there are always different ways in which meaning can be interpreted and negotiated (Morgan, 2010). Hence, there is not one single interpretation that can be termed down as being a final analysis and there is always room in such cases for further interpretations. Moreover, none of these discursive analysis traditions comes with any single prescribed method on how to proceed when it comes to tying down an analysis, which has also been quite challenging.

Moreover, another limitation of the linguistic ethnography approach is that since it stems very much from the Western world and that since most researches done using this approach lie very much within a Western context, apart from the few carried out in Mozambique (Chimbutane, 2009) and in Syria (Almohammad, 2014), there is hardly any research which is done within a linguistic context such as the one that exists in Mauritius, except in the case of Vanuatu (Willans, 2013), which is shaped by a double colonial history30 like Mauritius. Since this approach is very much Western and more so UK-based ideologically and culturally, re-appropriating this approach so that it can be used within a Mauritian context has been problematic. In much of the studies that were carried out within the field of multilingualism, where linguistic ethnography was used as an approach, multilingualism was a construct that stemmed from immigration as a condition and many of the studies actually focused on power issues that brought to the forefront the hegemony between the usage of the majority language – which, in many cases was English – and the minority languages that the immigrant children brought to class. Consequently, there hardly exists any research which deals with the study of a repertoire as has been advanced in my study. Therefore, the choice and use of an adequate analytical framework has been one of my main concerns as linguistic ethnographer undertaking a linguistic ethnography in Mauritius.

Another limitation of the linguistic ethnographic approach is that the linguistic ethnographer cannot but avoid impacting on the language practices that are being studied and that was my case indeed. There was no way in which I could refrain from shaping interaction in many instances (these will be discussed at length in further sections) and therefore I had to be very much aware of

61

this whilst producing data. Rampton (2007) argues that instead of thinking that linguistic and ethnographic methods are complementary, linguistic ethnographers should allow for a good deal of methodological reflexivity whilst producing data and recognise what the limitations of the approach taken are, so as to be fully aware of its implications.

Therefore, having pinned down the theoretical constructs within which linguistic ethnography, and reporting on its different limitations and challenges, I will move on, in the next section to look at how data was produced. For this purpose, I have tried to encapsulate within my writing the process as it shaped during that stage of the research, seeking to capture the process of becoming a linguistic ethnographer. As said earlier, I have used episodic writing to depictto depict the critical episodes in an attempt to map out the whole process which led to the final data production plan that was applied within this study. The choice of mapping out the data production process as such is also reflexive in nature. In so doing, the attempt has been to ensure the validity of the data produced within the tenets of ethnographic research. I would also like to point out that to maintain the anonymity of my participants, all names used for locations as well as persons are pseudonyms. Moreover, honorific titles have been given to all adults within this study while only forenames have been used for the learners. This has beenbeen done keeping in mind the ethical dimension of the research.

3.2 Section Two: Journeying into becoming a linguistic ethnographer: prior fieldwork